Delhi District Court
State vs Sabir on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NEETIKA KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-06, SOUTH WEST DWARKA, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. : DLSW020190062022
FIR Number : 157/2022
Police Station : Dwarka North
Section : 380/411/34 IPC
STATE Vs. SABIR & Ors.
a) Cr. no. of the Case : 5507/2022
b) Name & address of the Complainant : Santosh Kumar Ram,
S/o Late Sh. Nami Ram,
R/o H. No. 138, Ground
Floor, Shivani Enclave,
Part II, Kakrola,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
c) Name & address of the accused : (1) Sabir S/o Sh. Sahid
Husain, R/o A-206, A
Block, J.J. Colony,
Bharat Vihar, Kakrola,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
(2) Raju @ Vakil, S/o
Sh. Pappu, R/o A-102, A
Block, J.J. Colony,
Bharat Vihar, Kakrola,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
d) Date of Commission of offence : 01.03.2022
e) Offence complained of : 380/411/34 IPC.
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Digitally signed
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 1 of NEETIKA
11 by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2025.06.05
16:58:21 +0530
g) Final Order : Convicted
Date of registration of FIR : 02.03.20222
Final arguments heard on : 05.06.2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 05.06.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons, namely, Sabir is facing trial for
commission of offences punishable under Section 380, 411 r/w Section 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein referred to as IPC) and accused Raju @ Vakil
is facing trial for offence u/s 380/34IPC in connection with FIR No. 157/2022
registered at PS Dwarka North.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief
is that on 01.03.2022 at about 10:00 pm, complainant was present at his shop
situated at Shivani Enclave, Part 2, Delhi and had kept his mobile phone
(make Oppo (dark Blue in colour) on the counter of his shop for charging. At
that time, two boys came to his shop and as soon as the complainant got
engaged in some work, he realised that his mobile phone was missing. He
realised that his mobile phone had been taken away by the boys. He
immediately followed them and with the help of public persons apprehended
them. He called his nephew who called PCR. Boys were handed over to the
police officials. Statement of complainant was recorded, based on which
rukka was prepared and present FIR was registered.
3. During the course of investigation, IO inspected the
site of the incident and prepared a site plan. Accused persons were arrested
vide arrest memo and separate personal search memo was prepared.
Disclosure statements of the accused persons was also recorded. Mobile phone
was recovered at instance of accused Sabir. Statement of witnesses were
recorded and based on material collected during investigation against accused
persons, charge-sheet/final report was filed in the court by police u/s 380/411
r/w Section 34 IPC.
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 2 of 11 Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.06.05
16:58:26
+0530
4. On finding sufficient material on record against
accused persons, they were summoned before the court and on their
appearance, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to them in
compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein referred
to as Cr.P.C).
5. On finding prima facie case against accused
persons, charge was framed against him u/s 380 r/w 34 IPC and charge for
offence u/s 411 IPC was framing against accused Sabir, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Thereafter, the prosecution was called upon to
adduce its evidence and in order to prove its case, prosecution examined as
many as 02 witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Santosh Kumar is the complainant.
(ii) PW-2 SI Deepak Sharma is the
Investigating Officer of the case.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence,
incriminating evidence adduced by prosecution was put to accused persons by
recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the case of
prosecution and pleaded innocence but preferred not to lead any evidence.
Thereafter, final arguments were advanced on behalf of both the parties.
8. I have heard Sh. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the
State, and Sh. Rajnikant Mishra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have
gone through the case record carefully.
9. On the basis of evidence on record, following
points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt that on
01.03.2022 at about 10:00 pm at H. No. 138,
Ground Floor, Shivani Enclave, Part 2,
Delhi, both accused persons in furtherance
of their common intention had committedDigitally
signed by
NEETIKA
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 3 of 11 NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:58:32
+0530
theft of mobile phone (make Oppo, Blue in
colour) belonging to complainant, as
alleged?
(ii) Whether, on 02.03.2022 at unknown
time at H. No. 138, Ground Floor, Shivani
Enclave, Part 2, accused Sabir was found in
possession of mobile phone belonging to
complainant Santosh Kumar which he had
received or retaining knowing or believing
the same to be stolen property, as alleged?
(iii) Final order.
10. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter while
discussing the afore-mentioned points for determination, my findings on the
said points are as under:
Point No. 1 : Yes.
Final order : Accused persons, namely, Sabir and Raju @
Vakid are hereby convicted as per operative part of the judgment.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
POINT NO. 1 & 2
11. Both these points being interlinked and
interconnected are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and
precision.
12. To bring home the culpability of accused under
Section 380 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read.
Offence of theft is defined u/s 378 IPC and its punishment is prescribed u/s
380 IPC. Both are reproduced herein below:
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 4 of 11 Digitally
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:58:36
+0530
378. Theft: Whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any moveable property out of the
possession of any person without that
person’s consent, moves that property in
order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1.– A thing so long as it is
attached to the earth, not being movable
property, is not the subject of theft; but it
becomes capable of being the subject of theft
as soon as it is severed from the earth.
Explanation 2.– A moving effected by the
same act which affects the severance may be
a theft.
Explanation 3.– A person is said to cause a
thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it
from any other thing, as well as by actually
moving it.
Explanation 4.– A person, who by any
means causes an animal to move, is said to
move that animal, and to move everything
which, in consequence of the motion so
caused, is moved by that animal.
Explanation 5.– The consent mentioned in
the definition may be express or implied, and
may be given either by the person in
possession, or by any person having for that
purpose authority either express or implied.
Digitally
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 5 of 11
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:58:42
+0530
“380 IPC : Theft in dwelling house, etc.–
Whoever commits theft in any building, tent
or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is
used as a human dwelling, or used for the
custody of property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.”
13. To bring home the culpability of accused under
Section 411 IPC, it is pertinent that relevant provisions of law are first read.
Section 411 Act is reproduced herein below:
“Section 411 IPC : Dishonestly receiving
stolen property.-Whoever dishonestly
received or retains any stolen property,
knowing or having reason to believe the
same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
14. It is trite that in criminal law, the burden of proof
on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of
innocence of the accused must be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing
cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in
the case at hand, is to be weighed keeping in view these legal standards.
15. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.03.2022
at about 10:00 pm at H. No. 138, Ground floor, Shivani Enclave, Part 2,
Kakrola, Dwarka, both accused persons committed theft of mobile phone
belonging to complainant but were caught by complainant with the help of
public persons and the same mobile phone was recovered from possession of
Digitally
signed by
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 6 of 11 NEETIKA
NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:59:02
+0530
accused Sabir and accordingly, accused persons namely, Sabir and Raju @
Vakil committed offence u/s 380 r/w Section 34 IPC and accused Sabir was
committed offence u/s 411 IPC.
16. Ld. APP for the State emphasized that PW1/com-
plainant has duly identified the accused persons in the present case and
navigated the attention of the court to the testimony of the complainant and
asserted that the said the said witness unimpeachably proved the commission
of offence by the accused and contended that complainant/victim/PW-1 has no
reason to falsely implicate the accused as they are not acquainted with each
other and as arrest of the accused as per arrest memo is also of the same date
and around the same time as deposed by PW-1 in his testimony, the same
reinforces the credibility of prosecution case.
17. Ld. counsel for the accused persons, per contra
argued that the case of the prosecution is far from the touchstone of standard
of beyond the reasonable doubt. He contended that the entire story of
prosecution rests on the testimony of the complainant and argued that absence
of any public witnesses renders the prosecution version highly unreliable as
the accused persons were merely present at the spot and was not involved in
the incident. It is argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in
the present case.
18. As the prosecution story centers around a theft
incident whereby accused persons had committed theft of a mobile phone but
were caught by complainant with the help of public persons, testimony of
complainant is critical and crucial to the case of prosecution.
19. Complainant Santosh Kumar, stepped into the
witness box as PW-1, supported the case of the prosecution and stated that on
01.03.2022 at around 10:00 pm he was present at his shop at Shivani Enclave,
Part 2, Delhi and had kept his mobile phone on the counter for charging. Two
boys i.e. the accused persons came to his shop and started talking to him.
When he was engaged in some work, he noticed that his mobile phone had
gone missing. He immediately followed the accused persons and with the help
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 7 of 11 Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:59:06 +0530
of public persons, apprehended them. His nephew Vishal called police and
PCR van came to the spot and arrested the accused persons. He gave the
written complaint which is Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, site plan was prepared
which is Ex.PW1/B. Mobile phone was seized in his presence vide seizure
memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo
Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Personal search memos were prepared which are
Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. Witness correctly identified both the accused
persons in the court.
20. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel,
he deposed that he had not seen who amongst the boys had taken away his
mobile phone from the counter. No other independent public persons were
present at the spot at the time of the incident. He denied the suggestion that he
had not handed over receipt of the rent to the police as he was not running a
shop. He denied the suggestion that alleged incident had never taken place. He
failed to state the nature, number and type of documents on which he had
signed on the day of the incident. He deposed that though some public persons
were present at the spot but he failed to state their names. He admitted that all
documents were prepared by the IO at PS. He denied the suggestion that he
was deposing falsely.
21. In order to corroborate the testimony of PW-1,
prosecution examined SI Deepak Sharma as PW-2, who stepped into the
witness box and deposed that on 01.03.2022 vide DD No. 109A information
regarding theft of mobile phone was received. After some time, PCR van
brought the complainant and accused persons to PS. Complainant gave his
complaint which is Ex.PW1/A, based on complaint, rukka was prepared which
is Ex.PW2/A and present FIR was registered. On cursory search of the
accused, mobile phone make Oppo was recovered from possession of accused
Sabir which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused persons were
arrested vide vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. Personal search
memo of accused persons were prepared which are Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G.
Disclosure statements of accused persons were recorded which are Ex.PW2/BState vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 8 of 11 Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
NEETIKA Date:
KAPOOR 2025.06.05
16:59:12
+0530
and Ex.PW2/C. Site plan at instance of complainant was prepared which is
Ex.PW1/B. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the
court.
22. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
admitted that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He also admitted that
other cases were going on against the accused persons. He denied the
suggestion that accused persons were called to PS and arrested by him and
were not taken by PCR van. He admitted that no CCTV cameras were
installed at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been
falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery was made from them.
He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in
PS. He denied the suggestion that accused persons had not made any
disclosure statement or their signatures were taken on blank papers. He denied
the suggestion that he had not conducted fair and proper investigation in the
present matter. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
23. The cardinal principal of imputing guilt of the
accused persons is that the said guilt must be proved beyond the reasonable
doubt. There is no reason brimming from the record which goes on to suggest
that present case is a motivated one and complainant has gone to falsely
implicate the accused persons. The defence through its cross-examination has
not proved the fact of enmity and false implication. In such circumstance, no
reason of false implication of the accused persons is available on record.
Identity of accused persons is established because the main witness and victim
of this incident PW-1 Santosh Kumar in his evidence has identified the
accused persons clearly. Also, SI Deepak who had conducted the investigation
also supported the prosecution case in totality and clearly deposed about the
apprehension of accused persons. Even on the basis of their evidences, the
involvement of the accused persons in the occurrence is proved. The defence
did not bring any evidence to contradict, impeach or cloud the avowal of the
complainant in this regard and nothing has surfaced from the record which
could suggest that complainant has testified falsely. The complainant during
the testimony has corroborated the facts mentioned in the FIR and there is no
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 9 of 11 Digitally signed
by NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
Date:
KAPOOR 2025.06.05
16:59:18
+0530
discrepancy in the date or time of the incident as narrated by him. Although,
complainant was cross examined at length but nothing favorable to the
accused was made out.
24. The plea of the defense that no public witnesses
have been examined does not hold any force as it is trite law that the if
deposition of a material witness surfaces as untainted the same shall be
sufficient enough to indict the accused persons and convict them eventually
and the absence of other corroborative evidence such as statement of public
witness shall not play any vital role to fog the story of prosecution with
incredibility.
25. Accused persons were apprehended from the spot
by the complainant with the help of public persons and there was promptness
in registration of FIR, these arresting facts and circumstances coupled with the
testimony of complainant/PW-1 renders prosecution version cogent, consistent
and reliable and the fact that no public witnesses were examined does not
hamper the prosecution story in any way.
26. The mere plea taken by the counsel for the accused
persons is that accused persons have been falsely implicated does not have any
force as pertinently, no suggestion was put by Ld. Counsel for accused persons
to the complainant disputing the presence of accused persons on the spot of
the incident.
27. In view of the above discussion, it is safely
concluded that prosecution has successfully proved that on 01.03.2022 at
around 10:00 pm at H. No. 138, Ground Floor, Shivani Enclave, Kakrola,
Dwarka, New Delhi, accused persons committed theft of mobile phone
belonging to complainant Santosh Kumar and tried to flee away from the spot
but were caught by complainant with the help of public persons. Thus, these
points are decided in favour of the prosecution and against the accused
persons.
Final Order
28. In view of the facts and circumstances, accused
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 10 of 11 Digitally
signed by
NEETIKA
NEETIKA KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2025.06.05
16:59:25
+0530
persons, namely, Sabir is hereby Convicted for committing offence
punishable u/s 380, 411 r/w 34 IPC and accused Raju @ Vakid is convicted
for offence punishable u/s 380/34 IPC.
29. Announced in the open court on 06.06.2025.
Judgment shall continue. Let the convicts be heard separately on sentencing.
Digitally signed
NEETIKA by NEETIKA
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date: 2025.06.05
16:59:32 +0530
(Neetika Kapoor)
JMFC-06/SWD/Dwarka Court
New Delhi/05.06.2025
State vs. Sabir & Ors. FIR No. 157/2022 Page 11 of 11